Perhaps Bush didn’t have war on his mind, but the neo-cons he implanted into his cabinet most certainly did. Have you not check out Project for a New American Century like I said? Check out the section on Iraq/Middle East.

Simply fascinating stuff.

I’m surprised Rummy and Co. didn’t remove the site. What could be their purpose for keeping it up?

Untrue Mike. Bush was not talking about this and the populace wouldn’t have been behind it. Before 9/11 there was no will to go into Afghanistan or Iraq no matter how many “thinkers” that you point out wanted to go to war. I doubt these sources anyway without even checking out your URL because I watch C-SPAN and listened to Rumsfeld, Bill Bennet before 9/11. Liberals can’t just make things up anymore..

Please address this question:
Why do liberals keep asserting/implying that Iraq has been a diversion away from Afghanistan when General Tommy Franks has set the record straight over and over saying that after the start of Iraq that we increased military presence in Afghanistan.

It’s ok to be against going into Iraq mike. What does liberals a disservice is when they call Bush/America arrogant or assert that Bush lied.

If you see my earlier posts (you haven’t addressed them) you can see that to call Bush a liar on this topic would mean that you have to be asserting that the French, German, Russian, British, and U.S. Intelligence agencies were lying and that top Democrats like Kerry, Clinton, Albright and Gore were lying (and even before Bush came into office).

The fact that EVERYBODY was off the mark when they said the word “stockpiles” and we haven’t found “stockpiles” but we’ve found bits and pieces of evidence of 90% of what was asserted means just that – that EVERYBODY was off the mark.

Now you have pros and cons for going into Iraq. You didn’t address that either. I see more benefit. You don’t. That’s called a disagreement. It is not however the case that we are WRONG or arrogant.

I’d like to think you’d place me higher on the food chain than those monsters.

Re: the Clinton comment. No, I try to be somewhat consistent in my thoughts. I was totally disgusted at Clinton’s bombing campaign several years ago. Even I can admit his “Wag the Dog” tactic to shift the news from his presidential peccadillo to the bombing of an aspirin factory was deliberately offensive.

Now…on to your point.

Mark, you continue to assert that liberals as a whole are not interested in pursuing the threat that remains in the ideals of Islamo-fascism. This is where many on the right continue to miss the point in interpreting liberal ideology.

Liberals stand with all Americans in demanding that THOSE INVOLVED IN 9/11 and THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL US are swiftly brought to justice.

Unfortunately, EVIDENCE NOW and EVIDENCE THEN shows that Iraq was in no way harboring ANY threat to our nation. If Clinton had gone to war in 1998, then I would have been all over him (although you may say it’s unfair of me to say that now…which would be a valid point for you to make). All I know is what I see and read. Conservatives came into this administration with war on their minds. Look no further than the Project for the New American Century website, an organization that was SWARMING with neo-cons (Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Wolfie and Rummy, Dick Armitage, Jim Woolsey) who wanted to see war with Iraq.

If conservatives’ pretext for going to war in Iraq was to guarantee our safety, I feel they’ve been duped. This is my personal opinion. I don’t feel any safer now that our arrogance in Iraq has bred ten times as many terrorists as there were before the war.

I’m sure many Iraqis hated our guts pre-war. Unfortuantely, that mere hate has now brought ACTION against our citizens, be they military or civilian.

Now, Afghanistan is a totally separate subject. I’d like to see more action in that country. I’d speak more of it, but I feel I’m straying too far off topic.

Mike please read my earlier posts. It would not be Bush’s BS, it would be everybody’s BS. You try to pin it only on Bush when most were saying the same thing before Bush got into office. That is where your Bush hatred shows through and through. Read the words I stated earlier and match up what you are saying to them and everyone else who reads here who has logic can see that you are pinning Bush as a liar when he was stating what every intelligence agency in the world and top Democrats were saying and EVEN before Bush came into office.

Mark

I respect your apparent willingness to give Mike M. an ongoing hearing – but speaking for myself, I have been about as entertained by him as I am ever likely to be.

He does not seem to be adding anything substantive to the discussion. There are many valid criticisms to be made of the current administration – but Mike is not the one making them.

You are a voice – Mike M. is just an echo. I don’t ask that you ban him, but I would suggest that you and your readers not feed the trolls…

“And to say that all reporting on the war in Iraq should what be talked about in terms of us leaving shows how biased you are. Reporting should be about facts and what is happening and not an advocation of an opinion.”

Perhaps if journalists had done some “fact-checking” on Bush’s BS…

Oh well, I’ll shut up.

Your crazy generalizations don’t even merit a proper response. And yours is an attitude I’ve frankly come to accept from many within the conservative base.

The reason I’ve enjoyed La Shawn’s blog is that she doesn’t stoop to such common generalizations. Generalizations on both sides are dangerous and I’ll admit I’ve made a few.

However, your saying that liberals stay silent when someone is beheaded is idiotic. Liberals cheering that justice is brought to some thug military men who think they own the power of law in their own hands is a huge overstatement.

Don’t misappropriate what we liberals do and feel. You have no idea.

Thanks LaShawn!

…